Katherine Katz

Antitrust Litigation

• In re Juul Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. Representing JUUL Labs, Inc. in multidistrict litigation involving alleged fraudulent marketing and products liability claims related to JUUL e-cigarette and e-vapor products. Claims were brought by government entities, personal injury plaintiffs, and economic loss plaintiffs alleging personal, economic, and public harm. Kirkland achieved a series of pre-trial victories, including dismissal of more than 600 cases for the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with a discovery order, full dismissal of RICO claims, and dismissal of Government Entity complaints and certain state law claims. Bellwether trials are scheduled to start in Fall 2022.
• In re Interior Molded Doors Litigation. Currently defending client Jeld-Wen in nationwide class action alleging price fixing in the sale of interior molded doors.
• In re ACTOS End-Payor Antitrust Litigation. Represented Teva Pharmaceuticals in an antitrust class actions alleging that a patent settlement between Teva, other generic drug manufacturers and Takeda regarding the drug ACTOS® delayed the introduction of competing products. Both direct purchaser and indirect purchaser actions were dismissed and plaintiffs did not appeal as to Teva.
• Modafinil Antitrust Litigation. Represented Barr and Teva against claims under the Sherman Act alleging that several generic manufacturers and a brand manufacturer conspired to keep a generic version (modafinil) of the narcolepsy drug Provigil® off the market. Won partial summary judgment in 2014. Favorable settlements were reached in the remaining actions in 2016.
• In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation. Represented Teva in the first antitrust case arising out of a patent litigation settlement to go to trial after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis. Settled the case favorably for Teva after nearly six weeks of trial.
• In re Cipro Cases I & II. Represented Barr Pharmaceuticals in a California class action alleging that Barr and Bayer Corporation colluded to delay the entry of a lower-priced generic version of the antibiotic Cipro®. Litigated novel issues at the trial court after the initial summary judgment ruling was reversed on appeal as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis and settled the case before trial.
• Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital, et al. Defense of Bain Capital against claims of collusion and bid-rigging in multibillion dollar leveraged buyout transactions from 2002-2006. Won partial summary judgment for Bain in 2013 and case settled soon thereafter. This case was recognized in the article, “Bain, Goldman Settlements A Cautionary Tale for PE Firms” in the June 2014 edition of Law360.

Labor and Employment Litigation

• FTI, LLC et al. v. Holder et al. As lead counsel, brought breach of contract and tortious interference claims on behalf of FTI, LLC and FTI Consulting, Inc. against three former employees and their new employer. FTI alleged that Defendants had violated post-employment non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, resulting in a lift-out of FTI’s Latin America investigations practice. In November 2018, following extensive discovery and months of hard fought motions practice, reached a favorable settlement for FTI on the eve of trial. Leading up to settlement, successfully defended against a motion to dismiss and three summary judgment motions challenging the facial validity of FTI’s post-employment restrictions and the factual bases of FTI’s claims, defeated defendants’ motion to exclude FTI’s damages expert, and was granted leave to put on evidence of punitive damages and Defendants’ destruction of evidence at trial.
• UAW v. Honeywell. Won summary judgment for Honeywell in LMRA and ERISA class action brought by labor union alleging that Honeywell is prohibited from implementing negotiated caps to retiree medical benefits.
• Allen v. Honeywell Retirement Plan, et al. Counsel for Honeywell in complex ERISA action. Entered case following series of adverse rulings and won summary judgment for Honeywell on claim valued at $390 million on which court had previously entered judgment in plaintiffs' favor.

Trade Secret Misappropriation

• DSM v. Honeywell International Inc. Won summary judgment for Honeywell in lawsuit alleging that Honeywell misappropriated trade secrets when it hired an employee who previously worked at a competitor and subsequently obtained a contract to supply the Enhanced Combat Helmet to the U.S. military. This case was featured in the Reuters article, “Honeywell Knocks Combat Helmet Trade Secrets Case on its Head” in July 2018.

False Claims Act

• Currently serving as counsel for Honeywell in a False Claims Act case accusing Honeywell of misrepresenting the quality of ballistic material used in law enforcement body armor.
• Conducted corporate internal investigations into allegations regarding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.